Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Prompt discarded' without clarifying that all nine parameters are effectively ignored, nor does it mention any side effects, output format, or limitations. The behavior of the tool is largely opaque.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified and not front-loaded with important context. It wastes no words yet fails to provide any substantive guidance, making it more under-specification than effective conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This tool has 9 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and the description provides almost no operational detail. It does not explain what the three-step template is, what it is used for, or how parameters relate (or don't relate) to the output. An agent has no way to confidently invoke or interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter description explicitly says it is 'discarded after' a check, so the schema already communicates that parameters are unused. The tool description adds no further meaning and does not clarify that all parameters are optional and irrelevant to the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ('Return') and resource ('a three-step thinking template'), so an agent can tell what the tool produces. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools that also return static shapes or hints, and 'Prompt discarded' is confusing about what input is ignored.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of the intended use case. The agent is left to infer that this is for generating a generic template, but nothing says why it would be preferred over other tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.